Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Author
Topic: HIV criminalization escalates (Read 27151 times)

A legislator in the U.S. state of Maryland wants to increase the penalty for HIV transmission from a misdemeanor with possible 3-year jail sentence to a felony with a 25-year jail sentence. So now I could get married in Maryland, but only if I don't get thrown in the slammer first.

And this from a Democrat. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, just disappointed. What's really irritating is this legislator's rhetoric -- flirting with equating HIV transmission with domestic violence. Of course, he doesn't support penalties for transmitting other STDs like Hep B or C, or HPV, only HIV. That's one thing that has always irritated me the most. If legislators are really serious about public health, in their mistaken view that criminalizing transmission reduces transmissions, why not make it a crime to transmit all STDs? I feel so special having HIV.

Reactionary hysteria. What is this, the 1980s and 1990s? If this legislator is serious about addressing the HIV epidemic in the African-American community, he needs to do better than just increasing the penalty on HIV transmission.

To be clear, in no way am I agreeing that it is OK to transmit HIV, but I know there is a whole cadre of folks here who will jump on that bandwagon.

Feeling special today... and not in a good way.

Henry

(Updated only to include a link to the news article.)

« Last Edit: March 06, 2012, 10:30:36 AM by Buckmark »

Logged

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

A legislator in the U.S. state of Maryland wants to increase the penalty for HIV transmission from a misdemeanor with possible 3-year jail sentence to a felony with a 25-year jail sentence. So now I could get married in Maryland, but only if I don't get thrown in the slammer first.

And this from a Democrat. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, just disappointed. What's really irritating is this legislator's rhetoric -- flirting with equating HIV transmission with domestic violence. Of course, he doesn't support penalties for transmitting other STDs like Hep B or C, or HPV, only HIV. That's one thing that has always irritated me the most. If legislators are really serious about public health, in their mistaken view that criminalizing transmission reduces transmissions, why not make it a crime to transmit all STDs? I feel so special having HIV.

Reactionary hysteria. What is this, the 1980s and 1990s? If this legislator is serious about addressing the HIV epidemic in the African-American community, he needs to do better than just increasing the penalty on HIV transmission.

To be clear, in no way am I agreeing that it is OK to transmit HIV, but I know there is a whole cadre of folks here who will jump on that bandwagon.

Feeling special today... and not in a good way.

Henry

(Updated only to include a link to the news article.)

C.T. Wilson is a prosecutor. It's in his blood. He is also one of the 26 democrats in Maryland who voted against same-sex marriage. The fact of the matter is that this passage from the article is correct:

"Any law that treats HIV exceptionally is problematic for the way [it] reinforces stigma and inaccurate information about the actual routes and risks of HIV transmission,” says Roose-Snyder. “It is similarly problematic to have a law that does not clearly require intent to do harm, and does not require any likelihood that the harm could actually happen.”

I can't say that I disagree with a law that prosecutes those who *INTENTIONALLY* infect others with our disease, but for those transmissions which are completely unintentional, this should not be the case.

Logged

"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." - Winston Churchill

“I can’t imagine a person who would know that a person had AIDS and would sleep with them,” Wilson said of the reason to mandate disclosure. “I would say that is a very small percentage.”

This is all about his own ignorance and prejudice. What an uneducated (at least where hiv is concerned) jerk. People like him should not be permitted to propose laws concerning the realities of something they know little, if anything, about.

When are people going to wake up and accept all the studies that show hiv criminalisation has the exact opposite effect to what they're trying to achieve (reducing transmission)? I don't know of a single study that shows the criminalisation of hiv has had a positive effect on the reduction of transmission rates. It's wilful ignorance and it's dangerous and damaging. Pisses me off.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

“You may have created these laws to protect women and black women, but they are being used against these women more often than not,” says Kelly. “These criminal laws are used as a form of coersiveness and a form of domestic violence to make a woman stay in a violent relationship.”

She says she has worked with at least three women in recent years who were in abusive relationships. The women had disclosed their HIV-positive status, and the abusive partners had attended doctor’s appointments with them. Regardless, says Kelly, when these women left the relationship, the abusive partner used the criminal law to harass the HIV-positive woman — with all three ultimately charged under those laws.

“It really slips the script when you see the reality,” Kelly said.

Kelly says the state of Maryland would be better off spending money to empower HIV-positive persons to disclose their status and to find “women controlled” prevention methods, of which currently there are none.

She also took exception to Wilson’s claim that no one would sleep with a person with HIV.

“It’s a form of AIDS stigma and it’s very dangerous,” Kelly says. “People who test positive do, eventually, end up having sex again.”

You are left with laws that can be manipulated and used against folks who do everything right, considering disclosure and treating their infection. These laws do not protect any "victims", they simply criminalize being poz.

Asked if he supported making transmission of HPV, or Hepatitis B or C a crime, Wilson said those viral infections are not the same as HIV. All three viruses can cause various forms of cancer in the infected person.

“There is only a casual connection between those viruses and cancer,” Wilson said. “The big difference between things that might cause you to get cancer and AIDS. HIV always leads to AIDS which leads to death.”

Someone should educate these legislators on the enormous strides made in HIV science that have made HIV a chronic illness today. That's what the doctors and researches say, don't they ? That one has a 'near normal life expectancy' prognosis. So why doesn't the law reflect that? Untreated HPV, Hep B and C can be fatal too. So what exactly are they driving at ?

This wilful inconsistency and vile hypocrisy only seeks to put HIV+ people under a special viral subclass- this won't stop new infections and will only heighten the stigma.

Someone should educate these legislators on the enormous strides made in HIV science that have made HIV a chronic illness today. That's what the doctors and researches say, don't they ? That one has a 'near normal life expectancy' prognosis. So why doesn't the law reflect that? Untreated HPV, Hep B and C can be fatal too. So what exactly are they driving at ?

This wilful inconsistency and vile hypocrisy only seeks to put HIV+ people under a special viral subclass- this won't stop new infections and will only heighten the stigma.

No offense to anyone in Maryland, but Annapolis is rather a joke in the DC metro area. Maryland State Congress is filled with crooks, scandal and uninformed people. Legislation like this doesn't surprise me, with a large percentage of lawmakers being what political scientists refer to as the "ineffective public". They don't know any more about the issue they seek to address than the average Joe on the street does. That's why I'll never live in Maryland again. The Commonwealth of Virginia is better run, even if we can't get married here yet.

Logged

"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." - Winston Churchill

“I can’t imagine a person who would know that a person had AIDS and would sleep with them,” Wilson said of the reason to mandate disclosure. “I would say that is a very small percentage.”

I must have been so incensed that I missed this particular paragraph. Now I'm even more incensed, and pissed off. I'm surprised this hasn't come up in the Texas legislature recently. Oh, wait, Texas is too consumed with telling women what they can and cannot do with their uterus. Texas generally prosecutes HIV transmission cases as "assault with a deadly weapon", as we have no specific criminal statue for HIV transmission (yet).

I guess after being positive, we should no longer have sex. I'm sure there are plenty of people out who believe this.

Logged

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

You mean, he needs to do anything and everything BUT criminalize HIV transmission.

Yes, correct, that's what I meant to say, but didn't express as well as you.

Logged

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

You mean like having a budget surplus and yet also running one of the largest waiting lists for ADAP?

Touché. I forgot about the ADAP waiting list. I guess I meant in terms of our legislators and local officials not constantly being embroiled in scandal. A lot of us in this area are still pretty bitter about Jack and Leslie Johnson.

Logged

"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." - Winston Churchill

Touché. I forgot about the ADAP waiting list. I guess I meant in terms of our legislators and local officials not constantly being embroiled in scandal. A lot of us in this area are still pretty bitter about Jack and Leslie Johnson.

Dunno, the Cuccinelli obsession with vaginas is a bit scandalous if you ask me. The fact that he can even fathom running as governor speaks volumes about where Virginia sits in the Sanity Caucus, with the exception of a few places in NOVA and then Charlottesville. And then on a baser level Richmond sucks money out of those areas and gives them shitty highways that can't handle the traffic instead of raising taxes even a minute bit.

Dunno, the Cuccinelli obsession with vaginas is a bit scandalous if you ask me. The fact that he can even fathom running as governor speaks volumes about where Virginia sits in the Sanity Caucus, with the exception of a few places in NOVA and then Charlottesville. And then on a baser level Richmond sucks money out of those areas and gives them shitty highways that can't handle the traffic instead of raising taxes even a minute bit.

LOL! Why don't you tell us how you really feel.

I have to agree with you a little bit, I guess. I live in Arlington, and most of us in NOVA would rather become our own state than keep sending money to Richmond, but the fact remains that as a state, Virginia's government is better at running itself than Maryland's government. And this idiot from Charles County is a perfect example of why that is. THAT was my central argument.

The thing is that the majority party in Virginia is Republican. I don't think it's a sanity thing, it's just a political preference thing. Regardless, HIV is a bipartisan issue. It effects Republicans just as indiscriminately as it does Democrats. We can argue about McDonnell and Cucinelli until the cows come home. As a market liberalist, I will agree with you on most points.

But central to OP's point, I think it's flat our wrong to cast such a large net with a bill like the one C.T. Wilson is introducing. Forget passing on HIV, *THAT* is criminal.

Logged

"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." - Winston Churchill

Wherever you stand on markets and the economy it has bugger all to do with victimising people with HIV for hyperbolic and non-existent harm. People are people, they have sex, make bad decisions in sex, take risks, it's even in the Bible this, if that is a crime better turn a large state, or maybe just France or Mexico, over to being one big prison.

When are people going to wake up and accept all the studies that show hiv criminalisation has the exact opposite effect to what they're trying to achieve (reducing transmission)? I don't know of a single study that shows the criminalisation of hiv has had a positive effect on the reduction of transmission rates. It's wilful ignorance and it's dangerous and damaging. Pisses me off.

Hi Ann,

Do you have any links for studies on the impact of criminalisation of transmission? I've previously had a look for supporting evidence when this topic has come up in forums elsewhere, and couldn't find what I needed, so would be really useful to have it on hand for future discussions.

Thanks

Logged

''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

I think the criminalization of HIV/AIDS is a very dangerous misconception, not all of us pozies go around putting our dicks into everyone else and shooting cum up where ever we please, that's like saying all gays, as well as all pozies are monsters, and don't have any morals , we don't all swing naked from Shabby Chic Chandeliers

Logged

"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Do you have any links for studies on the impact of criminalisation of transmission?

I used to have a few, but for the past several months google toolbar no longer works with the newer updates to Firefox and I haven't been able to access my huge library of links. I'm slowly building it back up elsewhere.

I don't recall ever finding them through google searches - I've just stumbled across them here and there and added them when I found them. I believe I came across one or two linked to in blog entries on Edwin J. Bernard's criminalisation blog (this page and this page might be good places to start on his blog) as well as the criminal law pages over at aidsmap.com that Edwin wrote (also linked to on his blog).

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

I think the criminalization of HIV/AIDS is a very dangerous misconception, not all of us pozies go around putting our dicks into everyone else and shooting cum up where ever we please, that's like saying all gays, as well as all pozies are monsters, and don't have any morals , we don't all swing naked from Shabby Chic Chandeliers

Quite. One thing I've noticed is that when the issue of HIV infection comes up, a lot of gay men who are negative (or think they are), start saying things like 'Well, that's what you get when you bareback in sex clubs all the time'. There's a very real belief that HIV is only acquired by 'sluts' and that because they don't consider themselves to be 'promiscuous' - which is a patently subjective - then they will be immune to HIV. It's a way for them not wanting to personally deal with the reality of HIV (that anyone who's sexually active can be at risk) and that's exactly the fear that criminalisation laws tap in to.

« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 12:09:16 PM by Zohar »

Logged

''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

Quite. One thing I've noticed is that when the issue of HIV infection comes up, a lot of gay men who are negative (or think they are), start saying things like 'Well, that's what you get when you bareback in sex clubs all the time'. There's a very real belief that HIV is only acquired by 'sluts' and that because they don't consider themselves to be 'promiscuous' - which is a patently subjective - then they will be immune to HIV. It's a way for them not wanting to personally deal with the reality of HIV (that anyone who's sexually active can be at risk) and that's exactly the fear that criminalisation laws tap in to.

Sounds like sheer denial to me, on the neg's part, some of them do have HIV/AIDS and do even know it, or care, so that to me makes them just as acountable for there actions, you simply cannot use ignorance of the law it's really not a very viable excuse, so they should be proscuted just like us pozies are, why do they get a FREE PASS from the HIV criminalization , that's very hypocritical to me

Logged

"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Sounds like sheer denial to me, on the neg's part, some of them do have HIV/AIDS and do even know it, or care, so that to me makes them just as acountable for there actions, you simply cannot use ignorance of the law it's really not a very viable excuse, so they should be proscuted just like us pozies are, why do they get a FREE PASS from the HIV criminalization , that's very hypocritical to me

I know what you're getting at but I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for HIV transmission, under any circumstances, whether they know their status or not. And I say that as someone where's there's a 50% chance that I acquired HIV through forced sex.

« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 05:40:09 PM by Zohar »

Logged

''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

I know what you're getting at but I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for HIV transmission, under any circumstances, whether they know their status or not. And I say that as someone where's there's 50% chance that I acquired HIV through forced sex.

Yeah, I don't agree with it as well, however RAPE is another story we all know that is already a crime, and I know the laws of the land & some states do have very "gray area's" in what HIV criminalization translate too....

that was one of the reasons I got outta law enforcement, I had to enforce those laws on the books, and most all of them, I didn't believe in as a gay man w/ AIDS, I'm surprised I last 5 yrs. in that profession, I later went on the do something else

Logged

"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

There are few studies on the impact of ciminal laws on tranmission, testing, seeking care etc etc. There are two running now in the UK on testing and whether the criminal law affects professional attitudes, what they offer/do/discuss etc.

Lemme throw my hat in the ring here. My feelings are that if I'm moving towards anything that's going to lead to sex or a relationship...I'll tell them my status before either of us has too much invested emotionally. That way it's "if there answer's no...tell me before I spend $10 on drinks (or rubbers)". If somebody wants to go around having sex with or without a condom, without letting the other party know their status, and that partner becomes infected due to exposure through that contact...fuck the person keeping the secret. If the law dictates it...send the fucker to jail. If somebody feels they don't need to disclose to somebody they're banging...it's because they know right well the other person wouldn't have anything to do with them if they did...

Lemme throw my hat in the ring here. My feelings are that if I'm moving towards anything that's going to lead to sex or a relationship...I'll tell them my status before either of us has too much invested emotionally. That way it's "if there answer's no...tell me before I spend $10 on drinks (or rubbers)". If somebody wants to go around having sex with or without a condom, without letting the other party know their status, and that partner becomes infected due to exposure through that contact...fuck the person keeping the secret. If the law dictates it...send the fucker to jail. If somebody feels they don't need to disclose to somebody they're banging...it's because they know right well the other person wouldn't have anything to do with them if they did...

Why is the onus (heh) on the pozzer? Why shouldn't HIV negative people bear the responsibility for protecting themselves?

Case in point, kinda hard to prosecute consenting adults, if the poz+ discloses their status, were all adults and we make our beds and lay in them, NO I don't think it's right to throw us pozies in jail, but come on now disclosure might just save your ass in the long run ya think

Logged

"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Tell the HIV negative person that you're HIV+. With that knowledge fresh in hand I'm sure they'll be happy to protect themselves, via condom or deciding not to have sex with the poz person at all.

You seem to think that the only "risk" is if a negative person has sex with a positive person...... I dare say that a large number of folks in this forum got HIV from not using a condom with someone who thought or said they were negative -- or -- simply assumed they were.If the negative person treats all sexual partners like they are positive (i.e. use a condom), then they don't have to worry about someone who THINKS they are negative, but aren't..............

I wonder if anyone has ever considered criminalizing unplanned pregnancies when one partner lies and says she's on the pill. Why should straight men pay the price when a one-nighter lies to them. Same concept.

Why is the onus (heh) on the pozzer? Why shouldn't HIV negative people bear the responsibility for protecting themselves?

MtD

Of course not! They are the innocent victims who should assume every encounter is a safe one, right? Its p to us, singlehandedly, to protect the moral masses from our viral scourge.

And what if we're not buttfucking? Do we disclose before a kiss? before giving (not getting) oral sex?

Because technically giving a blowjob can open us up to prosecution - despite it being zero risk to the guy getting it.

*modified for content

« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 11:03:20 PM by jkinatl2 »

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

Tell the HIV negative person that you're HIV+. With that knowledge fresh in hand I'm sure they'll be happy to protect themselves, via condom or deciding not to have sex with the poz person at all.

Why not just use condoms all the time? I mean, some people tell fibs about their status. A standing prick having no conscience and all that.

Why rely on somebody else to protect you from the virus? That's always struck me as the height of fucking stupidity.

Consider the number of newly diagnosed people who come in here whinging about getting HIV because some evil maggot lied to them. If they'd just insisted on frangers in the first place (whether their partner disclosed, lied or neither) then they wouldn't be HIV positive at all.

Tell the HIV negative person that you're HIV+. With that knowledge fresh in hand I'm sure they'll be happy to protect themselves, via condom or deciding not to have sex with the poz person at all.

This promotes a mindset where people will rely more on disclosure than on protecting themselves by just wearing a condom.

Unintended consequence is that, most certainly, the neg person will at some point hook up with someone who is untested and THINKS and thus says that he/she is negative and the neg person will eventually get infected.

I nearly infected my ex-partner precisely because I thought I was neg and could therefore bareback with no possible ramifications.

Wear a condom, protect yourself. It's really not much different than wearing a seatbelt or a helmet.

Here is a link on the UNAIDS stance on Criminalization of HIV transmission.

"The thrust of the paper is: There are no data indicating that the broad application of criminal law to HIV transmission will achieve either criminal justice or prevent HIV transmission. Rather, such applicationrisks undermining public health and human rights. Because of these concerns, UNAIDS urges governments to limit criminalization to cases of intentional transmission i.e. where a person knows his or her HIV positive status, acts with the intention to transmit HIV, and does in fact transmit it."

Why rely on somebody else to protect you from the virus? That's always struck me as the height of fucking stupidity.

It IS the height of fucking stupidity, and it boggles my mind that a positive person would advocate that victim mindset - which obviously did not serve THEM very well at all.

WHY not assume a person is positive until proven otherwise? A negative status, once revoked, cannot (at this time) be reinstated. Seems that the person with the most to lose would want/need to be the most vigilant.

I am honestly baffled at the US/THEM attitude I see sometimes - even here on these forums. To consent to a sexual act IS to consent to the possibility, however remote, of getting an STD including HIV. That is with or without a condom. Using a condom IS performing due diligence.

I submit that the people who think otherwise also believe that some of us deserve it, and some of THEM are sad victims of monsters.

Which is an awfully juvenile notion for a supposed grownup to espouse.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

I apologize if I've struck a nerve with anybody. This is a sore subject for me because I know somebody that is poz and is fucking as many woman as possible without disclosing his status. He's using protection with every partner as "far as I know"...but this does open a can of worms for both parties.

A) At what point do you disclose, if fucking turns into something more? It's pretty naive to think that the uninformed partner is going to be very understanding that "this was a difficult topic to bring up". In this case...honesty in the relationship is out the window, and I wouldn't "expect" the uninformed partner to hang around.

B) Condom breaks...girl ends up pregnant AND positive.

C) Condom or no condom...disclose to the uninformed ignorant partner and have them have to deal with the mind fuck of wondering if they're going to have HIV now or not? YES...welcome to the world of HIV/AIDS. Aren't you glad I never told you? NO...holy shit! How long do I have to wait to know for sure that I'm not going to catch HIV/AIDS now?

D) Wow...I really fell in love with that person and they just left because of something I can't change.

E) Wow...I really fell in love with that person and I have to leave because I'm a germophobe.

Other option..."Hey...before we get too involved here, I need to tell you something. I'm HIV+. I just wanted you to know right up front before this gets too far down the road. Yes...we can have safe sex, and I'm willing to answer any questions you have or can direct you to any information you're looking for."

What's the problem of just disclosing if you know your positive? If somebody doesn't know they're positive...that's entirely different. But the judicial system could find out this information easy enough by checking health records for better clarification of just who knew what and when. I'm just asking...if somebody knows they're positive, why not just disclose? What's the advantage of keeping quiet, other than getting laid vs not getting laid. Why the fuck add more turmoil to our lives by theoretically having to walk on egg shells, because we know we're going to have to deal with some type of shit at some point, whether it's an honesty/trust issue...or seeing somebody become positive and now justifying that "they had as much responsibility to keep this from happening as we did." Justify away...but it would be so much easier to just be up front and let the other person decide how they want to handle the situation.

If somebody wants to go around having sex with or without a condom, without letting the other party know their status, and that partner becomes infected due to exposure through that contact...fuck the person keeping the secret. If the law dictates it...send the fucker to jail. If somebody feels they don't need to disclose to somebody they're banging...it's because they know right well the other person wouldn't have anything to do with them if they did...

(emphasis mine)

One statement makes an ethical/moral argument for the benefits disclosure. The other, well says "send the fucker to jail."

I'm not debating what you JUST wrote, I am debating what you originally wrote with such vehemence.

So a law that says if I give a BJ to someone without disclosure is cool with you? Or a law that says that I go to jail regardless of whether or not transmission occurs is OK with you?

And what of the other party? Are they utterly not responsible for their health?

Do you not even fathom the damage that mindset does to getting people to test and know their status?

You write far too eloquently for that to be the case.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

What's the problem of just disclosing if you know your positive? If somebody doesn't know they're positive...that's entirely different. But the judicial system could find out this information easy enough by checking health records for better clarification of just who knew what and when. I'm just asking...if somebody knows they're positive, why not just disclose? What's the advantage of keeping quiet, other than getting laid vs not getting laid. Why the fuck add more turmoil to our lives by theoretically having to walk on egg shells, because we know we're going to have to deal with some type of shit at some point, whether it's an honesty/trust issue...or seeing somebody become positive and now justifying that "they had as much responsibility to keep this from happening as we did." Justify away...but it would be so much easier to just be up front and let the other person decide how they want to handle the situation.

What's the problem in disclosing if you're positive??

You seem to totally gloss over or fail to understand these facts:

-Sexual desire is an innate want, need and urge for most of the human race.

-Condoms, if used correctly and consistently, provide effective protection against STI’s.

- It is unbelievably hard for many (if not most) people to disclose and I can easily imagine situations triggering violence. (I think you should understand this example: A woman in an abusive relationship has an affair with someone else and contracts HIV. She’s afraid of telling her husband but insists on condoms).

-The overwhelming vast majority of infections (virtually all) occur due to someone being oblivious of their infection passing it on unwittingly and not from people who’ve learnt about their infection.

-After one turns poz, nearly each and every person, takes steps to ensure no onward transmission takes place via a combination of these measures (whether they disclose or not): consistent condom usage, sero-sorting, safe sexual practices, an undetectable vl through meds etc).

-No one wants to get infected or to pass on the infection (except for a minuscule fraction of deranged loons who are doomed regardless of HIV).

-Criminalization of HIV transmission is counter-productive for us as a community. It serves no purpose other than the media getting their rocks off in hysterical coverage at the expense of making all our lives more difficult than they already are.

I apologize if I've struck a nerve with anybody. This is a sore subject for me because I know somebody that is poz and is fucking as many woman as possible without disclosing his status. He's using protection with every partner as "far as I know"...but this does open a can of worms for both parties.

A) At what point do you disclose, if fucking turns into something more? It's pretty naive to think that the uninformed partner is going to be very understanding that "this was a difficult topic to bring up". In this case...honesty in the relationship is out the window, and I wouldn't "expect" the uninformed partner to hang around.

B) Condom breaks...girl ends up pregnant AND positive.

C) Condom or no condom...disclose to the uninformed ignorant partner and have them have to deal with the mind fuck of wondering if they're going to have HIV now or not? YES...welcome to the world of HIV/AIDS. Aren't you glad I never told you? NO...holy shit! How long do I have to wait to know for sure that I'm not going to catch HIV/AIDS now?

D) Wow...I really fell in love with that person and they just left because of something I can't change.

E) Wow...I really fell in love with that person and I have to leave because I'm a germophobe.

Other option..."Hey...before we get too involved here, I need to tell you something. I'm HIV+. I just wanted you to know right up front before this gets too far down the road. Yes...we can have safe sex, and I'm willing to answer any questions you have or can direct you to any information you're looking for."

What's the problem of just disclosing if you know your positive? If somebody doesn't know they're positive...that's entirely different. But the judicial system could find out this information easy enough by checking health records for better clarification of just who knew what and when. I'm just asking...if somebody knows they're positive, why not just disclose? What's the advantage of keeping quiet, other than getting laid vs not getting laid. Why the fuck add more turmoil to our lives by theoretically having to walk on egg shells, because we know we're going to have to deal with some type of shit at some point, whether it's an honesty/trust issue...or seeing somebody become positive and now justifying that "they had as much responsibility to keep this from happening as we did." Justify away...but it would be so much easier to just be up front and let the other person decide how they want to handle the situation.

Some thoughts:

1. Brevity is the soul of wit;2. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Each of us is responsible for protecting ourselves. Once we negate that obligation diseases like HIV thrive. As Spacey so eloquently demonstrated, laws which criminalise HIV non disclosure do nothing to stop the spread of the disease. They probably make things worse.

The chap you refer to sounds like a real cunt. But (assuming he's not raping these women) if his sexual partners insist on condoms for vaginal and anal sex, his non disclosure is not an issue. By not taking steps to protect themselves, they are complicit in their own potential infections.

We must inculcate a culture of personal responsibility. HIV disclosure laws allow people to eschew their obligations.

We must inculcate a culture of personal responsibility. HIV disclosure laws allow people to eschew their obligations.

That's something that pisses me off about the Republican party in the US. They are usually the most vocal about enforcing - and strengthening - hiv criminalisation laws. Yet in most every other sphere, they're always yanking on about "personal responsibility" - like when they slash (or attempt to slash) the budgets for safety net measures to protect the more vulnerable in society. Or socialised medicine. They're always banging on about "personal responsibility" in being able to afford health care.

It's like they're saying "I don't want to pay for YOUR healthcare, but I expect YOU and YOU ALONE to protect MY health when it comes to hiv and if you don't, we're gonna throw your ass in jail. And by the way, I don't want ANYONE to know how to protect their health through using condoms. I'm not gonna fund sex education, I'm just gonna throw your ass in jail." (and while we're at it, which costs more - sex education or years of incarceration?)

They only espouse personal responsibility when it suits their political agenda.

Klipsch, the way many of the criminalisation laws are set up, disclosure won't protect you against a vindictive ex who may claim non-disclosure after the relationship has broken up. I think someone in this thread provided some examples - either here or in the other recent criminalisation thread about the case in France.

And the case in France brings up another aspect of criminalisation laws. Are you aware that a man was recently convicted of hiv related offences even though he didn't even know he was poz? This has set a VERY dangerous precedent, one that I fear will be cropping up in other areas of the world.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

A) At what point do you disclose, if fucking turns into something more? It's pretty naive to think that the uninformed partner is going to be very understanding that "this was a difficult topic to bring up". In this case...honesty in the relationship is out the window, and I wouldn't "expect" the uninformed partner to hang around.

You are a bit inexperienced.

I know many gay couples where the disclosure happened well AFTER the sex started because the sex starts right away. The sex was safe. At disclosure, the negative partner did not run away. In some instances the negative partner said "who cares." In other instances, it was a bit of a bump in the road.

I also know that other times, yes, its like you imagine, the negative one can't deal with the news. For different reasons.

I broke up with a guy in the late eighties for this reason. I asked him quite a number of times over a few years if he was positive. Always said no. Yet he knew he was. The sex was always safe. When he finally did disclose, the issue was as you say - broken trust. Many years later, I wonder if my issue really was trust at the time. Maybe I wasn't really in love with him, or not anymore, or maybe it was fear of HIV, or whatever.

But, as I explained, there are certainly PLENTY of gay men who "hook up" and don't expect any discussion of their history of STDs. That question might come quite a bit later on, after mutual interest is established.

The world is filled with almost infinite different types of people, psychologies, and ways of constructing a couple. When people start making gross generalizations, it leads to baseless arguments, biased observations and, finally, personal values masquerading as... Oh wait, this isn't a thread about Santorum and Romney...

« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 07:06:43 AM by mecch »

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

That's something that pisses me off about the Republican party in the US. They are usually the most vocal about enforcing - and strengthening - hiv criminalisation laws. Yet in most every other sphere, they're always yanking on about "personal responsibility" - like when they slash (or attempt to slash) the budgets for safety net measures to protect the more vulnerable in society. Or socialised medicine. They're always banging on about "personal responsibility" in being able to afford health care.

It's like they're saying "I don't want to pay for YOUR healthcare, but I expect YOU and YOU ALONE to protect MY health when it comes to hiv and if you don't, we're gonna throw your ass in jail. And by the way, I don't want ANYONE to know how to protect their health through using condoms. I'm not gonna fund sex education, I'm just gonna throw your ass in jail." (and while we're at it, which costs more - sex education or years of incarceration?)

They only espouse personal responsibility when it suits their political agenda.

Ann, I couldn't agree with you more -- well said.

Logged

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

Lemme throw my hat in the ring here. My feelings are that if I'm moving towards anything that's going to lead to sex or a relationship...I'll tell them my status before either of us has too much invested emotionally. That way it's "if there answer's no...tell me before I spend $10 on drinks (or rubbers)".

$10? You sure know how to impress the person you are courting, big spender.

Quote

If somebody wants to go around having sex with or without a condom, without letting the other party know their status, and that partner becomes infected due to exposure through that contact...fuck the person keeping the secret. If the law dictates it...send the fucker to jail.

Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the partner became infected. And that's the problem with disclosure laws.

Quote

If somebody feels they don't need to disclose to somebody they're banging...it's because they know right well the other person wouldn't have anything to do with them if they did...

Aren't you presumptuous?

« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 12:06:47 PM by Buckmark »

Logged

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

$10? You sure know how to impress the person you are courting, big spender.

Do note that the actual response was $10 on drinks OR a box of condoms. I guess if it's gonna be one of those REALLY big nights and a guy's gotta spring for the condoms, it's just a Hershey Bar and maybe some nylons for you.

Do note that the actual response was $10 on drinks OR a box of condoms. I guess if it's gonna be one of those REALLY big nights and a guy's gotta spring for the condoms, it's just a Hershey Bar and maybe some nylons for you.

Only 10 dollars on drinks PLEASE try like $100 that sounds reasonable to me

Logged

"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Consider the number of newly diagnosed people who come in here whinging about getting HIV because some evil maggot lied to them.

This is the situation that I'm talking about where the lying bastard gets locked up. Nothing more...because if somebody is unaware that they're positive, then there's nothing to tell. But the practice of No Balloons No Party...should be taught and understood by all to protect oneself and their partner from other STD's at the very least. In a case of knowingly exposing another person to HIV, without making them aware is a totally different than exposing them to herpes or some other STD. Regardless of the advances in medicine and HIV being considered a chronic illness instead of the death sentence it once was...it doesn't put it in the same category as genital sores and warts.

If knowingly exposing (and transmitting) somebody to the possibility of contracting HIV without their knowledge can be tried in court and carry the possibility of a life sentence...then those that are already positive would be doing a lot more to inform their potential sexual partner of their status beforehand. Of course it would be up to a prosecutor to prove previous knowledge, but that's easy enough to establish. Let the fuckers guilt or not be decided by a jury of his or her's peers.

Maybe I'm just a complete idiot and can't get past my own beliefs and morals regarding disclosing or not disclosing. I disclose as soon as I see myself or the woman becoming more than friends. Society is ignorant...and if she's going to run, I rather know now than later. The "before I spend $10 on drinks" line was something that I used to see on t-shirts when I was still in my teens...so I'm showing my age here...lol. But if the only possibility of being tried for HIV transmission hinges on previous knowledge and non-disclosure...then I can't see a reason for it not being escalated criminally.

It's kind of like the seat-belt law. Insurance companies got tired of paying medical expenses and death benefits to those involved in car accidents and not wearing their seat-belts. How could they limit their liability in auto insurance policies? They lobbied to make wearing seat-belts the law, and their liability dropped. I don't know about anybody else...but if it weren't for Ryan White and ADAP, there's no way in hell I could afford my HIV meds...not to mention the other meds I'm on due to side effects of side effects of side effects. Those funds are limited to nonexistent in some states. The only way to decrease, level or possibly increase those resources for those already infected with the HIV virus...is to slow the the number of new infections. So they want to make it a law to make every possible effort to not risk the possibility of transmitting HIV to another individual. It's a money thing...not a moral thing in their eyes.

So if you're reading this and you're already poz...continue, or get used to telling the person your gonna fuck that you're positive, or the likelihood of being locked up in the future may be imminent.

I'm not see this as a disclosure issue --- I'm seeing it as a responsibility issue. Who has the primary responsibility to their own well-being?? The negative person should assume the person they are fucking is positive and use a condom. I've not seen anyone in this thread say the positive person should not disclose -- they are saying that criminalization is not the answer (well, not in the vast majority of cases, IMO - we can probably always come up with that heinous example that might warrant it). Your response seems to put the entire onus for keeping the negative person negative on the positive person. That is insanity! -- why?? because the real goal should be to stop the spread of the virus -- that can be done (at least in sexual situations) via using condoms. If I had used a condom everytime, I wouldn't by typing this -- however, I didn't use one everytime, so here I am. It's not because someone didn't disclose -- it's because I chose to fuck bare.It's not about morals --it's about looking out for your own well-being. Quite honestly, when someone holds up their own morals as a reason why others should do "X", the hairs on my neck stand on end. Your morals are your own -- act on them all you want, but don't use them to tell others what they should/should not do.Personally, I hope that I would always disclose -- but that won't keep someone negative -- only their use of condoms will do that.